Send message to Author

Paper short abstract

Using Myanmar case, this study explains that armed groups secure funding by manipulating donor perceptions through three strategies: access, leggitimacy and information management. (modified on 8 July)

Paper long abstract

Not only states, but non-state actors—such as diaspora groups and international aid organizations—also supply funds and humanitarian relief materials under armed conflict. Such humanitarian aid is frequently delivered to local populations through specific armed groups or their affiliated entities. Humanitarian aid serves not merely as a source of material resources but also as a political asset that bolsters the legitimacy of the recipient organization.

It is often argued that armed groups possessing their own resources—and thus not dependent on the local population—are prone to abusing civilians. Conversely, donors (particularly those from the West) generally wish to avoid supporting groups that commit human rights violations.

Yet, in reality, donors do provide support to armed groups implicated in human rights abuses. Why is this the case? Political motives—such as a desire to support pro-democracy groups—may play a role. However, even when multiple pro-democracy groups exist, a specific one is often selected, and that chosen group is not necessarily free from a record of human rights violations.

This study explains three strategies armed groups employ to manipulate donor perceptions and secure funding. The first is establishing strong connections with donors. The second is emphasizing their status as the legitimate representative organization for the region. The third is information management—such as portraying themselves as distinct from the group's military wing or concealing information regarding human rights abuses.

This study illustrates these three strategies using the case of Chin State in Myanmar. Aid organization can exacerbate the conflict through delivering aid. (Modified July 8)